Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Canon EOS 100/1

Canon EOS 100

 * • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
 * Result: Endorse fail. Suggestions for improvements can be found in the discussion below. Geometry guy 18:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This article has a narrow technical scope. Due to this, most/all of the detail has very few references that can be used. Although there's plenty of information on the internet, most/all are circular references to the manufacturer's original publication, which the article lists. Although a narrow and technical article, I would argue it is still notable as the camera was a popular SLR film camera of the early 1990s.

This article was nominated for GA status. It was quickfailed because the reviewer wanted in-line citations and also thought the prose was not sufficiently flowing. For the second point, I would like a consensus to say whether the paragraphs were unnecessarily 'short and choppy'. For the first point, I'd draw attention to the guideline for general references.

If every piece of information has to be individually backed up, multiple in-line page number citations would have to be added to every sentence from both sources, i.e. two footnote references after every statement. I don't think this would add to the article's readability.

I know this isn't scientific (bots, repeat views, etc), but the article has had almost 7,000 views since the rewrite in November 2008. Nobody has requested in-line citations. But, again, I'll go along with the consensus if it's thought the guideline for general references doesn't apply.

On a last note, I'd also accept a consensus vote that, due to the article's inherent narrow and technical scope, it should never be given GA status, no matter how well written.--ML5 (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist. It's stubby and under-referenced. More importantly, it isn't broad in scope - for example, it doesn't sufficiently mention how was the camera fared commercially or its reception among users. Additionally, there are issues with MoS compliance, starting with the under-developed lead.  Majoreditor (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is not currently listed as a GA. Geometry guy 21:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not list. Even if allowance is made for the technical nature, i still find this article to have problems with layout (too many pictures bunched together), writing (far too many disjointed single line paragraphs) and possibly fails broadness per Majoreditor. If there is not enough to write beyond the technical specifications, i would consider merging into a longer product family type article - wikipedia should not have individual articles on products with only the product specs. The arguments against inline cites could apply to any article, so i don't see why this article should not have them, hence i support the original quickfail. I didn't see the original reviewer asking for multiple cites for each sentence, but certainly major claims should be cited, so a reader can find the info themselves.YobMod 16:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments. This isn't good article standard at the moment, although a more detailed review than it got would have done no harm. In this respect I have several comments.
 * The review refers to B-Class criteria. These are not, and have never been, requirements for good article status. The criteria are at WP:WIAGA, nothing more, nothing less.
 * You read that wrong, I was giving advice, not stating requirements. Hekerui (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Several statements require inline citation per the GA criteria. One example is "Canon claimed this made it the quietest camera in the EOS range." This is published opinion. Another is "The EOS 100 was among the first of Canon's cameras to have the facility to alter its operation via custom functions." Also: "As of 2008, EOS 100 bodies can be bought from on-line auction sites from as little as £10/$15. As with the T90, and other older Canon SLR film cameras, 'sticky shutter' can be a problem. This can affect the camera's resale value."
 * I agree that most of the material in the article is uncontroversial technical information and does not require citation per the GA criteria. However, even though this is not a science article, it is a technical one, so you could take a leaf out of the scientific citation guidelines book which recommends providing citations to general sources for each section or paragraph.
 * The paragraphs are much too stubby. I lost interest already in the second section, and I like these cameras!
 * The fact that there are so few sentences needing citation indicates a lack of broadness, per Majoreditor's comment above. Opinion is a vital component of almost all encyclopedia articles and it makes them more interesting. Add it, quote it, cite it.
 * Almost all articles are eligible for GA status. In particular, being technical is absolutely no obstruction.
 * Good luck improving the article. Geometry guy 20:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)